Alabama workers to pay for extra pounds [Fatties pay more for insurance]

MSNBC ^ | 8/21/08

[Eric Blair 2084]

Leftists would still find a way to control people and justify their existence. If the manufacturing jobs that hurt so many hard working Americans weren’t lost in the 70s the global warming alarmists would have shut them down today for environmental and pollution reasons.

Back to the point at hand, you are right. If people don’t pay the healthcare bill, why do they care if they get 40 MRI’s?

Turned out to be just indigestion and a sprained knee. Bill the Government.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

The health insurance vouchers will simply foster the overreliance on health insurance that insulates the medical profession from the need to cut costs for consumers.

[GOP_Lady]

I’m with you on those vouchers.

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

That’s why my hypothetical insurance company would NOT rely on BMI as an indicator of health risk.

[Eric Blair 2084]

thanks.

[Eric Blair 2084]

That’s the whole point.

A free market and actuaries and capitalists would use real data and research to determine their rates. Their profits would be dependent upon it.

Gubmint bureaucrats will use the Politically Correct opinion polls.

[GOPJ]

Ostracize them lard-@sses. Denormalize gluttony.

That's what liberals are trying to do - to shame them like they did smokers. They can do that - it's an expression of their values.

On the other hand, we can too. There's lots of liberal victim groups that live unhealthy lifestyles - - it's a "good for the goose - good for the gander" type things. (I took one of those online health test recently and the results have me living into my 90's - that a little too old for me - maybe I'll take up smoking...)

[The Ghost of Rudy McRomney]

A friend asked me if I was going to see the new Bond movie. My response:James Bond is dead. The director of the new ones said he owes it to kids who want to imitate James as a good role model- Can’t show anyone smoking anywhere in the entire film, but he still has a license to kill people in sadistic ways.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thanks for the ping!

[4Liberty]

1. Interest groups (industries) want government (taxpayers) to bear the costs of contract enforcement. It relieves them of those costs, and these regulations represent a form of subsidy.

2. The problem is, once the govt passes blanket regulations like this, the consumers have NO CHOICE among competing companies, some requiring different prices, and some pooling risk rather than discriminating, some giving price discounts for “good” behavior, rather than price increases for “bad” (costly) behavior (same thing, but - consumers can stomach the former, for some reason...). Industries don’t care about government intervention and the loss of customer choice, however; they only care about the bottom line. Most businesspeople are not free-marketeers, but are amoral profit maximizers — “by any means necessary,” unfortunately...

3. To be fair to the insurance industries that lobby the govt for these benefits, it is also true that the industries THEMSELVES are prevented from “discriminating,” initially. So these regulations may represent a second-best outcome, to them.

Ideally, government would get out of the business of both “preventing discrimination” (read: pricing risk), and out of the business of pandering to interest groups desiring govt. to bear liabilities, rather than having markets bear the risks. The Moral Hazard problem (and costs to taxpayers) is the end result of the latter activity. Let companies discriminate if they want — but also let competition among companies give consumers choices, while having businesses bear their own risks & costs.

Does this help?

Regards,

4Liberty

[timm22]

Let companies discriminate if they want — but also let competition among companies give consumers choices, while having businesses bear their own risks & costs.

I think we are in agreement on everything you wrote. I have no problem with price discrimination in the private sector. I don't even have a problem with the *concept* of government price discrimination, at least in most instances. In theory, it leads to more efficient allocation of resources and potentially fewer tax dollars spent.

But in practice, government price discrimination is not just about increased economic efficiency, as it is in the private sector. Governments (and those who influence them) are concerned with more than just our money. That's why we should be alarmed by government price discrimination even if we find it acceptable in the private sector. It can very well be a sign of more intrusive policies down the road.

[elkfersupper]

Thank God for this.

I have long celebrated the fact that I can run the fatties out of the candy aisle of the grocery store as fast as their jello and cottage cheese body parts can carry them simply by appearing with an unlit cigarette.

It's about time this bunch got their just rewards.

[jim35]

Everyone has a risky lifestyle, in one way or another. Therefore, everyone should pay more for insurance.

[Gay State Conservative]

Everyone has a risky lifestyle, in one way or another.

I suppose that's true.Getting out of bed in the morning isn't without the potential for harm.Nor is the safe driving of a car.Or crossing the street.But smoking...skydiving...being substantially overweight are all *unnecessary* risks.Therefore I have no problem with life insurance companies and health care plans adjusting their rates to reward those who don't take these risks and charge those who do....with the understanding that these folks often cost more to insure...in terms of premiums taken in and "benefits" paid out.

[dragnet2]

The state has given its 37,527 employees a year to start getting fit — or they’ll pay $25 a month for insurance that otherwise is free.

The government employees get FREE health insurance?

Who they kidding? It's not free.

The stupid tax payers are footing the bill for their health care and wages.